{"id":94824,"date":"2025-10-22T18:47:30","date_gmt":"2025-10-22T18:47:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/94824\/"},"modified":"2025-10-22T18:47:30","modified_gmt":"2025-10-22T18:47:30","slug":"peter-laupamas-aggravated-robbery-acquittal-sent-back-to-the-rotorua-district-court-for-review","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/94824\/","title":{"rendered":"Peter Laupama\u2019s aggravated robbery acquittal sent back to the Rotorua District Court for review"},"content":{"rendered":"

Laupama demanded the victim hand over his car keys<\/a> and told him he was going to receive \u201ca few punches\u201d from someone<\/a> and when that was done, he would get his car back.<\/p>\n

The victim asked for his medication but was told, \u201cI don\u2019t give a f***\u201d. <\/p>\n

However, his bag was then returned to him without anything being removed. <\/p>\n

The victim told Laupama to take his car but he was ordered to also get in it.<\/p>\n

As the victim followed Laupama to the vehicle, he saw an opportunity to flee and ran to his neighbour\u2019s house.<\/p>\n

\"PeterPeter George Junior Laupama’s trial was held in the Rotorua District Court. Photo \/ Andrew Warner<\/p>\n

The police were called and the victim watched as Laupama drove away in his car. <\/p>\n

It was later found abandoned a short distance away.<\/p>\n

The day after the incident on November 14, 2023, the victim was in a Rotorua bar when he spotted Laupama in the pokies room.<\/p>\n

He phoned the police and Laupama was subsequently arrested.<\/p>\n

One month later, the victim died.<\/p>\n

However, his identification of Laupama was later used as hearsay evidence in a judge-alone trial of Laupama on a charge of aggravated robbery, relating to his stealing the man\u2019s car. <\/p>\n

A recently released High Court decision outlined the trial, as well as the Crown\u2019s subsequent appeal against the outcome.<\/p>\n

According to the decision, Judge Joanne Wickliffe presided over the trial in the Rotorua District Court earlier this year.<\/p>\n

She found the victim\u2019s identification of Laupama reliable and that he was the offender involved in the matter. <\/p>\n

However, the judge found Laupama had not intended to deprive the victim of his vehicle permanently.<\/p>\n

\u201cEven though he did take the vehicle and did not return it or otherwise take steps to reunite [the victim] with his vehicle, I must consider his intent at the time he was with [the victim] pointing a firearm at him and telling him to get into the car.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"JusticeJustice Michele Wilkinson-Smith considered the Crown’s appeal. Photo \/ Bevan Conley<\/p>\n

The judge considered the victim\u2019s call to 111 during which he said: \u201cI didn\u2019t steal from him, I don\u2019t even know \u2013 never met him before in my life and then he was forcing me to get into the car \u2018cause he said I\u2019m gonna go with him and I\u2019m gonna get a hiding from someone and then I could have my car.\u201d <\/p>\n

She also noted the victim\u2019s written statement that said Laupama had said he was going to take him \u201cto get a few punches\u201d and then he would get his car back.<\/p>\n

\u201cOn [the victim\u2019s] own evidence, Mr Laupama did not intend to permanently deprive him of that vehicle and so, for that reason, the charge is not proven,\u201d the judge found.<\/p>\n

Judge Wickliffe acquitted him of the aggravated robbery charge. <\/p>\n

The Crown appealed to the High Court against the decision, arguing the judge was wrong to have reasoned Laupama did not have an intent to permanently deprive the victim of his vehicle on the basis he intended to return it if the victim accompanied him.<\/p>\n

It also submitted the judge failed to consider whether the charge should have been amended to aggravated burglary. <\/p>\n

Laupama\u2019s counsel opposed the appeal, saying Judge Wickliffe was correct to find the Crown had failed to prove an essential element of the charge, and had there been consideration of an amendment, further submissions and potentially evidence would have been necessary. <\/p>\n

The High Court\u2019s decision stated an intent to take property on the basis that it would be returned only upon the performance of some condition, which an offender has no right to impose, was sufficient to establish an intent to deprive the victim permanently of the property.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe offender has such intent in the event that the victim does not do as the offender says,\u201d the decision stated. <\/p>\n

\u201cThe fact that the intent is conditional does not mean that it is not an existing intent at the time the property was taken.\u201d<\/p>\n

In her decision, Justice Michele Wilkinson-Smith differed from Judge Wickliffe, finding the charge of aggravated robbery had been made out on the facts that Judge Wickliffe found proved.<\/p>\n

\u201cI consider that a failure to address the issue of conditional intent did amount to an error,\u201d Justice Wilkinson-Smith determined. <\/p>\n

\u201cFurther, if I am wrong about that I agree that the proper course was substitution of a charge of aggravated burglary.\u201d<\/p>\n

Justice Wilkinson-Smith ordered the case be sent back to the District Court for reconsideration as to whether there was conditional intent on Laupama\u2019s part to deprive the victim of his property.<\/p>\n

If the court finds no such intent existed, it would need to consider whether the charge should be amended to aggravated burglary, \u201cwhich would appear to be clearly established on the factual findings already made\u201d, Justice Wilkinson-Smith stated. <\/p>\n

The case is scheduled to be recalled next month.<\/p>\n

Tara Shaskey joined NZME in 2022 as an Open Justice news director and journalist based in Taranaki. She has been a reporter since 2014 and previously worked at Stuff covering crime and justice, arts and entertainment, and M\u0101ori issues.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Laupama demanded the victim hand over his car keys and told him he was going to receive \u201ca…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":94825,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[45821,26480,13916,1863,1349,7557,6259,2082,42,27501,70339,70338,70337,43,193,5413,762,27517,1327,3048,13743,6102,49929,223,61,40,38,41,39,11548,1316,28251],"class_list":["post-94824","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-headlines","tag-acquittal","tag-aggravated","tag-asked","tag-back","tag-court","tag-district","tag-door","tag-for","tag-headlines","tag-heard","tag-jehovahs","tag-knock","tag-laupamas","tag-news","tag-other","tag-peter","tag-review","tag-robbery","tag-rotorua","tag-said","tag-sent","tag-side","tag-terminally","tag-the","tag-to","tag-top-news","tag-top-stories","tag-topnews","tag-topstories","tag-voice","tag-when","tag-witnesses"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/94824","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=94824"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/94824\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/94825"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=94824"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=94824"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=94824"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}